visoflex-novice in macroland

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are supposed to put it in the B&S forum, Wilson

 

Jaap,

 

I was not thinking of selling it at a commercial price but at a nominal price to a Visoflex enthusiast/forum member who could use it. It is otherwise just sitting around in a drawer.

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

Note the smiley Thanks. I'll donate a bit to the forum as a fine.

[elgenper]

Per - can you amplify? I thought you couldn't use the Viso 1 or 2 on the M8/9. Is it OK to use them if you're only working with the vertical finder? If yes, then I might be able to trace one...

 

The Viso I is a different animal than the II and III; look here for an image (scroll down some). There´s nothing to prevent it from mounting on any M Leica ever made (you´ll need an LTM-to-M adapter, since most are threaded).

 

The advantages are 1) the 45 deg prism is perfect for working rather low while showing a non-reversed view, and 2) when shooting verticals you can just turn the camera body 90 degrees while everything else remains in position on the tripod (there´s a moving mask inside that gives a correct masking of the groundglass in any position).

 

The disadvantages are numerous: different sets of adapters and bellows required; also a double cable release (no release arm on the I), or a quite rare but ingenious coupling cable. Also, far bigger and quite difficult to use freehand. But for pure macro, just lovely. I did own one, and stupidly sold it 5 years ago, complete with coupling cable, bellows, and short mount 135 lens. Now I bought a Viso III and another 135 for 5 times the sum I got for the old outfit....

[chris_tribble]

The Viso I is a different animal than the II and III; look here for an image (scroll down some). There´s nothing to prevent it from mounting on any M Leica ever made (you´ll need an LTM-to-M adapter, since most are threaded).

 

Very useful link! Thanks.

[Telyt2003]

Telyt 2003 - I'd not read your post properly - but now I have and HOORAY! It looks as if I have two simple solutions as I have the Visoflex 3 on order (and it will have been cleaned and calibrated by a very competent engineer with the right tools) andI'll have in a couple of days the Bellows 2 with the 16596 you mention. As I already have excellent modern 90 and 135 lenses I should be OK.

 

What a relief!

 

Chris,

you made me curious, I have quickly set up your planned equipment:

The Telyt 135/3,4 via adapter 16596 on bellows 2 (with Visoflex 2 and M8, in my case) .

 

Here is an example image made with 0 cm (additional) extension of the bellows (With the M-lens used completely on the bellows wich gives you an extension of 41 mm (Visoflex2/3) plus approx. 33 mm (bellows 2 compressed with 0 cm extension plus the adapter 16596).

Please compare the images of the set-up used for the example photo below.

 

Therefore, the additional extension was approx. 74 mm (more than half of the lens' focal length: reproduction ratio ~ 1:2 (more than half the original size on the sensor).

The mini book is ONLY 2 x 3 cm in size. Aperture was 11.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

And here is the set-up exactly as used for the above example photo (I focused directly on the screen). The cm scale shows the 0 cm position of the bellows' extension (white arrowhead):

 

 

This here would be your set-up for a ~1:1 reproduction with the Telyt 135/3,4 (with approx. 9 cm extension of the bellows, as shown by the arrowhead):

 

 

(Fotos 2 and 3: D-Lux2. Sorry for the flashed images)

Best regards,

Telyt2003

[chris_tribble]

Dear Telyt - this is extremely encouraging. My Bellows 2 has now arrived courtesy of Theo de Wit at Collect Camera, (what a beautiful piece of engineering)! I'm now waiting for Malcolm Taylor to sort me out some bits. He's very kindly offered to lend me a range of Viso (including tubes and lens heads) and is suggesting (as you have done) that the Visoflex 2 (used with cable release) + the "chimney" finder might be a good option because it's a simpler mechanism + gets round problems of diopter correction.

 

Malcolm's main input has been to stress the need to ensure that there's sufficient distance between the front of the lens and the object being photographed so that it's possible to use lighting effectively and to control DOF. For these reasons he's not certain that my Apo-Telyt 135 solution will work.

 

QUESTION - when you took the image above, how far was the lens from the object? How did you manage the lighting? What was the aperture? Looking at the results you've achieved, I actually think this might be a good solution.

 

QUESTION - am I right in thinking (and forgive me if I express this naively) that if I want to reduce the magnification effect I can use the A-T 135 directly mounted on the Visoflex housing, and if I want to increase this effect, I would use the bellows. Also - as I'll be using the M9, I'm going to get a bit more space around the object being photographed - correct?

 

QUESTION - given that my whole purpose in setting this up is to develop a macro photography capacity, what would be the advantages of using a dedicated 135 Viso lens head + tubes compared with this set up?

 

Thank you so much for your time on this.

 

Very best

[Telyt2003]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear Telyt - this is extremely encouraging. (...) suggesting (as you have done) that the Visoflex 2 (used with cable release) + the "chimney" finder might be a good option because it's a simpler mechanism + gets round problems of diopter correction. (...)

Dear Chris,

this would probably be a very well suited set-up.

 

(...)

Malcolm's main input has been to stress the need to ensure that there's sufficient distance between the front of the lens and the object being photographed so that it's possible to use lighting effectively and to control DOF. For these reasons he's not certain that my Apo-Telyt 135 solution will work. (...)

That's one reason for that generally longer focal lengths (at least 90 or 135 mm) are recommended (also) for the simple solutions (direct mount without special equipment, please see posts 31, 56).

(I would also recommend giving even longer lenses a try (180 mm R-lenses via adapter, even combined with extenders. I sometimes use the Apo-Telyt-R 180/3,4 with 2x Apo-Extender-R on the Visoflex2/3 for macro-at-a-distance. A possibility showing what works in principle, no serious recommendation, please see post 48).

 

(...)

QUESTION - when you took the image above, how far was the lens from the object? How did you manage the lighting? What was the aperture? Looking at the results you've achieved, I actually think this might be a good solution. (...)

Working distance (from front lens to object) was easily more than 30 cm (quite comfortable). Aperture 11, ISO160.

Light came from a single conventional 40 Watt bulb from above (nothing special, just a quick test).

 

There is no garantuee that a modern lens like the Apo-Telyt 135/3,4 is better suited for macro work than the older Tele-Elmar 135/4 (that has proven to be very good -also- for macro). However, the Apo-Telyt 135 appears to work.

For (strong) macro, it is often recommeded to check different apertures, because diffraction may cause severe image degradation (so I wouldn't stick to the aperture 11 just because the depth of field is needed).

 

(...)

QUESTION - am I right in thinking (...) that if I want to reduce the magnification effect I can use the A-T 135 directly mounted on the Visoflex housing, and if I want to increase this effect, I would use the bellows. Also - as I'll be using the M9, I'm going to get a bit more space around the object being photographed - correct? (...)

Nearly exactly like this (please see post 56) (Actually, we are mostly not talking about 'reducing the magnification', but about 'raising the reduction').

With a 135 mm lens directly on the Visoflex2/3, you get a reproduction ratio of around 1:3 (image on the sensor has a third of the natural size).

With the bellows, you get approx. 1:2 to 1:1 (half of to full natural size, i.e., less reduction to no reduction).

For even less (than 1:3), you may have a problem, since it would need longer lenses to be fitted directly to the Visoflex.

(Or, for example, a Macro-Elmar 90/4, used as intended, with or even without the macro-adapter, would give you a smaller (less) reproduction ratio (a stronger reduction of the image size on the sensor as compared to the above options). With macro-adapter, the Macro-Elmar just reaches 1:3).

 

Yes, the M9 will conserve a bigger part of the image produced by the (macro) lens. (The M8's sensor has approx 56% of the area of the M9's sensor. What you miss with the M8, is just a relatively thin stripe along the image border (for example of the Visoflex screen), which is much smaller than often imagined).

 

(...)

QUESTION - given that my whole purpose in setting this up is to develop a macro photography capacity, what would be the advantages of using a dedicated 135 Viso lens head + tubes compared with this set up? (...)

You could focus from infinity to macro, thus with all the reproduction ratios 'in between' which otherwise are missing to the set-up.

The simpliest option (with your equipment: Visoflex3 and bellows 2) is purchasing the standard adapter 16558 plus (only the head of) the Tele-Elmar 135/4 (please see option 3b in post 48).

However, even on the bellows, with the Tele-Elmar 135/4 lens head, you would reach a maximum extension of approx. 95 mm (the limit of the bellows), because the focusing range should start at infinity.

You would need additional macro rings 16471 (between 16558 and lens head) to get more (i.e., less reduction, i.e., to approach 1:1).

 

Thus, with a 90 mm lens head via 16558 on the bellows, you could focus from infinity to 1:1 (!). (However, I do not know what lens head to recommend, since a I am using the very good (but rare) 3-element Elmar 90/4. An old Elmarit 90/2,8 should be ok., and no great investment, as the Tele-Elmar when used for macro - no rangefinder cam calibration necessary).

 

(...)

Thank you so much for your time on this.

Very best

Welcome!

Visoflex2(00)3

[wlaidlaw]

Chris,

 

Do you know if Malcolm Taylor has hit the 21st Century yet and got an email address. The last dealings I had with him about 3 to 4 years ago, he hadn't. I want to ask him if he has a 14138 Televit adaptor and if not to keep me on file. I can always phone him but my record of him remembering to do things after the phone has gone down, has not been great.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Chris,

 

Do you know if Malcolm Taylor has hit the 21st Century yet and got an email address. The last dealings I had with him about 3 to 4 years ago, he hadn't. I want to ask him if he has a 14138 Televit adaptor and if not to keep me on file. I can always phone him but my record of him remembering to do things after the phone has gone down, has not been great.

 

Wilson

Wilson - I've pm'd you.

[chris_tribble]

Dear Chris,

this would probably be a very well suited set-up.

Welcome!

Visoflex2(00)3

 

Visoflex - I really feel I'm beginning to see the wood for the trees. Again, I'm so grateful for your patience.

 

Once Malcolm's sent me his box of bits, I'll report back on results.

 

Very best regards.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson - I've pm'd you.

 

Chris,

 

PM not arrived. Something funny seems to be going on with PM system in the last 2 weeks or so. I was sending PM's backwards and forwards to another member and I could see all of his but he could only see the occasional one from me. I have plenty of space left, so it is not that.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Not quite macro-land but has anyone used a B+W 486 UV/IR series VII filter in a Televit with either the 400 or 560 lenses. If so, did it make any appreciable changes. I was wondering if it might cut the haze that the 560 in particular seems to be prone to on the M8. If I use the M9 and crop, the pictures seem fractionally less hazy than the M8 and I just wondered if IR scatter was affecting the image. I am using a Leica UV series VII filter at the moment. I am a little disinclined to pay €59 to experiment with a B+W 486, let alone the £175 that a Leica 13421 would cost. The elements on my 560 have been cleaned and are not showing any fungus fluorescence with a UV light.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Wilson - all I was saying is that Malcolm's not got email yet (or isn't using it for his business) + his turn round and response has been great for me

[wlaidlaw]

Chris,

 

The work Malcolm did for me was great. He rebuilt a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens, where the idiots at Johnson Photographic had managed to scratch the front element when it went to them with a focus fault and did not even manage to correct that. He recoated the front element and one of the internal elements where the original coating had started to deteriorate and succeeded in adjusting it so that the focus did not change on zooming, which is apparently very difficult. However, he quoted 6 weeks and it took over 6 months.

 

He was supposed to be making me a UV/IR filter for my 50 Summitar and said he would look out for an old filter then cut down a B+W 41mm glass to fit. That was three years and two phone calls ago. He did say he was very busy and I am guessing it is forgotten. For an old lens, I now use my Contax Opton Sonnar anyway and on the M9, so the filter not really required.

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

I am thinking Aboutaleb light. If you want to use flash the best solution is to have the funnel viewer and the Nikon cable. There is a guy doing ultra flat hotshoecables but they are not fully wired. Or video lights.

[Telyt2003]

Not quite macro-land but has anyone used a B+W 486 UV/IR series VII filter in a Televit with either the 400 or 560 lenses. If so, did it make any appreciable changes. I was wondering if it might cut the haze that the 560 in particular seems to be prone to on the M8. If I use the M9 and crop, the pictures seem fractionally less hazy than the M8 and I just wondered if IR scatter was affecting the image. I am using a Leica UV series VII filter at the moment. (...) The elements on my 560 have been cleaned and are not showing any fungus fluorescence with a UV light.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

I am using the B+W 486 UV/IR-cut series VII filter in the Televit's filter slot with the Telyt 400/5,6 and different Telyt 280/4,8 lens heads and the M8.

As also with the Telyts 400/6,8 (and 560/6,8), using the IR/UV-cut filter in the filter slots makes a great difference with respect to IR-sensitivity.

 

The false reds, blues, browns and blacks (and the lack of plant green) when no such filter was used with the long 'telescope'-type Telyts were so distracting that I very quickly stopped ever using them without an IR/UV-cut filter . (Here is an example of a Visoflex lens used without the IR/UV-cut filter in evening light ).

Thus, I had no time to recognize, if IR produced haze in addition.

 

I would strongly recommend IR/UV-cut filters with all the Visoflex Telyts I know (probably all 200 to 560 focal lengths) when used on the M8.

I would also do so for the M9.

 

Best regards,

Telyt2003

[wlaidlaw]

Many thanks for that info Telyt. I will order one from Foto Huppert on Monday. I have been playing around the other way with a Wratten 89B 720Nm filter on the 280 Telyt. Focusing is a bit of an issue with a fair amount of trial and error. I need to go somewhere with a lake or river to get the right contrast, as interestingly, even in infrared, my V2 Telyt 280 exhibits low contrast.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

Well, well, well. Malcolm Taylor's box of goodies came this morning and I've been playing (sometimes the deadlines can go hang!)

 

The setup now is Visoflex 2 + x5 vertical viewfinder + Bellows 2. I've used it this morning with the A-T 135, Apo 90 Summicron and Macro-Elmar 100 f4 (on loan from Malcolm). Thus far I'm delighted. Very straightforward to focus off the ground glass, very straightforward to operate (mirror down to frame / focus, mirror up to shoot using 2 second delay). Some examples below shot with fully open and stopped down apertures. Lit with just a couple of desk lights. I've just realised that the focus on one of the Summicron shots is off, but can't be bothered to replace

 

I think this is going to work well with the AT 135 being the primary tool.

 

VERY thanks to everyone who's helped on this.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Interesting, it appears you are getting better results with your Apo-Telyt than with your Macro-Elmar.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chris_tribble]

I'm certainly impressed by how well the A-T 135 performs. The Macro-Elmar works very well - and does have an impressive range of magnifications when used with the bellows - but I think in terms of value for money for the small number of occasions when I need to do this kind of work, the Viso system + my current lenses will be more than sufficient.

 

What fun!